If one studies through some of today’s liberal ideology, the following points cannot be missed.
1. Conservatives are arrogant because they claim to know everything.
2. Conservatives should be like liberals, who are tolerant, loving, kind, and unsectarian. Furthermore, liberals understand grace, but conservatives don’t.
3. Doctrine doesn’t matter.
4. It’s all right to be sarcastic and insulting towards conservatives, so long as it is subtly done (it must be the subtlety which does not negate kindness).
Cecil Hook typifies these attitudes in his Internet publication, Freedom’s Ring. Consider some of his statements, which appeared in his article “The Quest for an Unidentified Unity” (No. 26, Week 1 of 5).
For too many years I thought I had the simple picture of unity. Just join in my segment of the Church of Christ. It was such a simple picture of five steps of conversion, five acts of worship, a scriptural name–you know, all those marks of the non-denominational church (which made us a distinct denomination). Why couldn’t the whole Christian world accept this way of unity so clearly taught in the Scriptures? Of course, we could not accept those who did not accept our concept, for they were not true Christians! (1).
Notice how Hook phrases everything he says (which reeks of sarcasm) to make it look as though conservatives (which he implies that he once was) are arrogant fools. Perhaps he was, but none of those preaching restoration concepts ever couched their messages in terms like these. Undoubtedly, he lacks documentation of this point for just that reason. Although there are abundant debate books yet in print, as well as collections of sermons, nevertheless he could not cite even one individual (besides himself) who ever looked at matters in the way he expresses them.
Who has ever preached that the key to unity is to “join in my segment of the Church of Christ”? Such is a perversion of the facts, calculated to prejudice the reader. Our plea has always been to restore the one gospel and true worship, which is a valid Biblical principle. Hezekiah thought it was; so did Josiah. When they each became king, they tried to restore things to the way God had authorized them to be in the Law of Moses.
Hezekiah, for example, returned the Levites to the temple (2 Chron. 29); he destroyed the high places and the altars (2 Chron. 31); and he determined to observe the Passover, which had been neglected. When messengers invited all the tribes to participate, however, certain Israelites “laughed them to scorn and mocked them” (2 Chron. 30:10). There will always be former Israelites like Hook, Shelly, and others, who take great pleasure in mocking those dedicated to restoring things to the New Testament pattern. But what is the alternative? Liberals must think either that restoration is impossible or that God gave no pattern in the first place (thus there is nothing to restore). Would not such ideas negate the concept of true worship (John 4:23-24)?
But what difference does it make how many steps there are? If God gave them, then they are requirements. Consider Noah, for example. He had to have faith that God was going to bring a flood upon the world; he also had to have faith that God would save him in the ark. Then he had to build the ark–according to God’s specifications. Could he have been saved by faith only? No, it was a matter of faith and works. Should we laugh and mock this two-step plan?
How many steps did Naaman need to cleanse himself of his leprosy? He had to have faith (which he lacked at first) that Elisha’s solution would work. Then he had to respond to the message by going to the Jordan River and dipping in it seven times.
Essentially, we are saved from our sins in the same way: faith, plus the correct response to God’s grace, which (in our case) includes repenting of sins, confessing that Jesus is the Son of God, and being buried with Him in baptism. Is there something here that the Scriptures do not teach? Even liberals know better than to challenge the Bible on these points.
If these points are Biblical (and they are), then why would anyone want to belittle the essentials for salvation that God has revealed (whether one or fifty steps)? Furthermore, if God has required them, which ones may man safely leave out? Can we discard repentance? Changing our lives is the most difficult thing there is to do anyway (it’s simpler to ignore what the Scriptures teach and then call it a matter of “interpretation”).
If it be admitted that nothing of what God requires can be dispensed with, the next question is, “If we must ourselves obey what God has said in order to have salvation, then how can we have unity with others who have disregarded various steps?” How can one who has neglected to repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38), for example, be a brother? If he does not need to do these things to become a Christian, then neither did we. Furthermore, we now have two gospels: one which includes repentance and baptism for the remission of sins, and one which does not (Gal. 1:6-9). Is God the author of confusion? No. Only liberals who want to make everybody a “brother” regardless of God’s plan of salvation are confused. Truth and error cannot be combined to produce unity.
Or is he implying that we are at fault for, say, refusing to unite with those who use instrumental music? Since nearly everyone in our culture does it, we should relent and count these people as brethren; is that his thinking? Should we ignore the fact that neither Jesus nor the apostles ever sang with musical accompaniment? Should we dismiss the fact that no New Testament church ever used musical instruments in their worship? The use of musical instruments in worship to God is clearly not authorized in the New Testament (Col. 3:17). Would Hook be happy if we worshipped the golden calves at Dan or Bethel?
We cannot be united with those who worship falsely. Again, the kind of unity some are advocating can only be achieved through sacrificing Bible teaching. We can reach a state of unity if only we have no principles.
Consider a painting by a great artist–perhaps done in his earlier years. Someone else paints over it, and several centuries elapse. Someone discovers there is a painting underneath the visible one and begins the restoration process. Obviously, he must believe that there was an original and that with painstaking work it can be restored.
Over the centuries men “painted over” God’s original teachings in the New Testament; we believe that there is an original and that it can be restored. Why is such a concept worthy of scorn? When the painting was restored, did someone find it necessary to accuse the restorer of being prejudiced or just painting the picture the way he wanted to? If the Bible teaches A, B, and C, and we uncover these teachings and begin to teach A, B, and C, why does that make us a denomination? The only way we could become a sect is by saying, “We don’t like B; so we are only going to teach A and C” (which is what others have done). Or if it became known that the Bible also taught D or E, and we refused to accept those teachings (“We’ve always just done A, B, and C”), then the accusation would stand.
But if the Bible teaches A, B, and C, and we teach A, B, and C, then we have restored the original, not created a new sect. If people insist that, despite all of our scrupulous efforts, we are nevertheless a denomination, then they simply do not believe that restoration is possible or necessary. We are distinctive–because we are interested in the truth of God rather than the opinions of men. We are not a distinct denomination.
What they refuse to comprehend, however, is that it is not doctrine that divides; it is error. The church in Jerusalem continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine (Acts 2:42), and they remained united (Acts 3:46-47; 4:32). It was not until error was injected amidst the truth that problems arose. What should Paul and others have said concerning the Judaizing teachers? “Oh, these doctrines are so confusing; some say that Gentiles must be circumcised; others say they don’t need to be circumcised. Listen, brethren, these doctrines are dividing us. We all believe that Jesus died for our sins. Let’s just forget about doctrine and be united.” Apparently this idea never occurred to the inspired apostle; he thought that people needed to know the truth on this subject. In fact, most of the New Testament letters were written so that brethren would know correct doctrine and abide in the truth.
It is not “our concept” that people need to accept; it is God’s concept. We have tried to be certain that “our concept” matches Biblical teaching. If we have failed, it would be helpful for someone to point out what has been overlooked or what we have added that is not there. To say of the Biblical attitudes and teachings we have attempted to restore that they are “our concept” is to presume that we are wrong or that there is no true concept. If the Bible, for example, teaches that we must have a love of the truth (2 Thess. 2:10), and we have a love of the truth, how then, is that our “concept”?
And if we seek to abide by the teaching of salvation taught in the first century, why is that called “our concept” instead of God’s concept? If God had a plan for people to become Christians in the first century (and He did), then why is it called “our” plan if we teach the same gospel? Certainly, men have devised other schemes of redemption, but the fact that there are counterfeits does not disprove that the genuine article exists. And the fact that liberals are willing to accept any bogus currency does not prove that God will honor it. Those who have never repented of their sins and been baptized for their forgiveness may be pious, religiously-oriented, conscientious, good parents, moral individuals, and good citizens, but they are not saved. God’s standards must always take precedence over man’s notions.